I would make a medium o so map, with 1 AI at godlike and let the game run for 50-100 turns without doing anything with your civ and then use god. If you haven't done so yet, you will have to modify the AIStarbaseGovernorDefs.xml. This determines how the AI upgrades starbases.
[quote who="Syrkres" reply="10" id="3648051"] Logically it seems the +3 antimatter seems better, but whenever I take over a planet the Antimatter (and similar buildings) are always to the side (not surrounded) so I ask is the game smarter than me or what? [/quote]Most certainly not. I modified the AI Governors for planets an study how the AI behaves. I can guarantee you, it is not smarter and if it makes a better choice then you, it does it by accident. The AI has a very sim
Yes, you would also need to change the AI for your suggestion or mine (now that I think about it), so the AI actually builds the lower sizes. If the AI actually builds the lower sizes, I think it also uses them in fleets on its own. You only need to make the AI build the ships of the right size (else they will simply send fleets of one huge hull only). I actually think this can be modded at the present even. Have the AI build fleets in a more controlled way would be prefereable though
Well, I am not entirely unsympathetic to this idea, it would add a little bit of comfort, granted. But: I would estimate - as simple as the problem looks - you will have someone put in somehting in between half an hour to a couple of hours to implement it and test it. This is time he won't use to do more awesome or important stuff, like improve the AI or fix a bug, which allows the AI to build multiple unique buildings. And from that perspective my preference is to
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="6" id="3647983"] Well some peoples minds are not mathematically inclined, especially mine. When i first look at your post it just looks like gobbldygook. [/quote]The complexity of the problem is: Counting. And decide which number is higher. I will let this stand here - without further comment.
I mean - as I said, I agree with you in that the combat system is not ideal and made a few suggestions myself. But one thing I would actually argue in addition: Why impose arbitrary limits (max X% of hull size Y), when you could also try make the fun way the one most favored by game mechanics? One example I suggest was making the largest hulls not be the sturdiest ones. I guess the easy way out for SD would be to make the AI use mixed fleets, but then they might encounter play
[quote]I really would like the fleets to have a more realistic disposition. [/quote]I have done some reading recently on this topic and I kind of have to disappoint you. Battlefleets don't have that much variety in composition. Let's go through some ship designations first, most of these names were coined before and during WW1: Warships (as per my english dictionary) or Ships-of-the-Line: In the early 20th century this was the designation for all
GalCiv3 Forums
[quote]It’s partly a marketing job and partly a game developer job. [/quote]Ok, I get how this is a marketing job. But I don't quite get, how it is a game developer job. Let's suppose I am being radical here and say, that anything which does not impact a games mechanics in some way, is not game development.
I took a closer look on 1 and 3 and couldn't make either work. In case some other modder wants to take a look, I will list my thoughts on each: AnomalyDefs.xml, does have an unused (or rather all anomalies use the default) option for an image, but this is for the dialogue after surveying it. AnomalyArtDefs, does only seem to hold entries regarding the 3d textures, similar to how ship colors are defined. The image file for the strategic anomaly icon is in "Galactic Civ
[quote] I don't crunch numbers so not going to take the time to figure it out, [/quote]*sigh* You know, in the time you took to post this, you could have done the calculation allready. As the admiral allready pointed out, you can simplify the problem a lot: You don't have to consider the base bonusses of any building. You don't have to consider the adjacencies of the anti matter PP and 2 of the factories, because those ar present in both situa
[quote who="Aragorn1ring" reply="6" id="3647216"] I've just never gotten my butt kicked on any game in Normal in 37 years lol [/quote]Don't be too concerned, you are not alone. https://forums.galciv3.com/479073/page/1/#3646868 https://forums.galciv3.com/478493/page/4/#3645116
Have you invstigated, how they are ahead in power? You can switch the minimap to a power graph and then through the sidebar to research manufacturing etc. Through the tradescreen you can investigate what tech they have (if tech trading is enabled), what kind of ships, how many starbases and most importantly: how many worlds . The total power rating can be deceiving, because it values your treassury and fleet too highly (in my opinion), because strong manuf
Bugfix 1: it also breaks the rule for faction uniques. I ahve seen 3 hyperion matrices for example addition: ability to set the game pacing vial the techinflation stats in the galciv3globaldefs.xml + something similar for manufacturing, maybe... its not that important
population doesn't affect influence approval does however. +25% at max approval, -25% at minimum.
You are missing one thing, I think. Tech gets more expensive with every other tech you research. GalCiv3GlobalDefs.xml : 1.25 &nb
[quote who="MyViewsAndMuse" reply="4" id="3646923"] interesting, does the game tell you the number of research points a given tech uses? Also, is the +250 research points indicated anywhere in the UI? [/quote]No, but you can set your research to one via the wheel. Then the time a tech is predicted to take until completed is equal to the number of research points invested. Note that tech becomes more expensive with wach tech you buy. The roots of the tech trees seem to count
Just a little clarification to my previous post: I didn't mean to say there was a warning for invading a venerable factions homeworld. I meant to say that this and a special declaration of war dialog for in case of venerable are things which should get implemented.
GalCiv3 Forums
1) If the population is higher than food on a planet you get negative population growth until it is equal to food. So if you want that much population you need to build farms to keep it. 2) Global. 3) Only the AI. The way it is set up in the .xmls I would expect the bonus to show up in the colony statistics. I am rather sure it does not. In this case this applies for all specialization treaties (research/wealth/influence) and alliance specializations. 4) I think it has
[quote who="Weidbrewer" reply="18" id="3646720"] I think that the bottom line from what I'm reading above is that instead of an open game where you can play the leader you want to play, it's become a spreadsheet game where you can only play conqueror and have to set things up in one linear, specific way in order to win on even the easiest difficulty. [/quote]This is just so saddening. If you want to play on genius and beyond, this linear path might be what you settle
Also one note about morale maybe: Don't be too concerned, if your morale isn't 100%. 100% is nice for its population growth boost early on and for influence, but in terms of production (and consquently research/manufacturing/wealth) the difference isn't all that big staying somewhere around 40-60% is fine, too. @psychoak, well if you wanna play vs. your +300% production AI you gotta do what you gotta do. But if you appreciate playing without it, who gives a shit if
Compete with what? I usually play large maps with 8 genius AIs (modded). I don't use the constructor trick and I don't use sensor ships. Depending on my mood I go for the benvolent or the malevolent ideology tree. Either works fine. Since you are playing against AIs which are pretty shackled by design, you also don't need to go for maximum exploit builds. If you want more roleplay just lower the AIs difficulty and you can pull off the build you want. I am n
[quote who="Philocthetes" reply="2" id="3646587"] staff whose only job is creating and polishing text in games [/quote]Wow, I would pity those guys. Not because there is much do, but because this would a terribly monotonous job. But given the kinds of threads I see on the forum, they certainly should put a little more work into the clarity of the information given.
Yea, but it still a little odd, the Drengin have this improvement at all.
I think I know why they did it differently, and gave it another generic name. Drengin for example ahve entertainment center despite having their own (way) better approval improvement. Hurts my eyes every time I see the AI build this over the better one. It also makes sence that you can't trade planetary improvement for example, because from a story perspective Torians use submerged farms and other races open air farms. So but why can't we trade engine technology of interstella
Hmm, interesting, I didn't use it yet, but I think I will look into this sometime. Though the biggest issue i see at the moment is really the upgrading behavior, which blocks building more useful stuff. Another thing I want to try out (some time) is the tech tree setting in the AI strategy defs.